Action Synopsis: Soil Fertility About Actions

Amend the soil with municipal wastes or their composts

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

Two controlled, replicated trials in Spain and the United Kingdom measured the effect of adding wastes to the soil. One trial found that adding municipal compost to semi-arid soils greatly reduced soil loss and water runoff. One found mixed results of adding composts and wastes.

SOIL TYPES COVERED: coarse loamy, sandy loam.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled, replicated experiment in 2000 on a semi-arid, coarse loamy soil in Alcantarilla, Spain (Ros et al. 2001) found that adding composted municipal waste was the most effective of three soil amendments, reducing soil loss by 94% and water runoff by 54% compared to an untreated control. Unstabilized municipal waste and sewage sludge reduced soil loss by 78% and 80% (respectively) and increased the soil’s ability to hold water by 43% and 24%. There were four treatments: an untreated control, municipal waste compost, an unstabilized municipal waste and sewage sludge. Treatments were tested in plots of 10 x 3 m and replicated three times. Stability of aggregated soil particles was measured and a runoff collector was installed downslope of each plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2000 on sandy loam soil in Wellesbourne, United Kingdom (Rahn et al. 2009) found that adding sugar beet Beta vulgaris tops with compost to a barley Hordeum vulgare crop increased soil mineral nitrogen by 11 kg/ha and yield by 11% , compared to no addition. Adding paper waste with sugar beet tops did not affect soil mineral nitrogen but improved yield by 23%. Adding sugar beet tops with straw, compactor waste or double rates of compactor waste reduced soil mineral nitrogen by 25, 15 and 36 kg/ha, and reduced yield by 47%, 21% and 63%, respectively. Amendments were applied at 3.2-3.8 t/ha, including compactor (machine which compresses waste material to reduce the space it takes up) and paper waste from the recycling industry, recently-harvested wheat Triticum aestivum straw, compost from municipal green waste, and liquid molasses (thick brown, uncrystallized juice from raw sugar) from the sugar refining industry. Amendments were applied with 42 t/ha sugar beet tops.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Key, G., Whitfield, M., Dicks, L.V., Sutherland, W.J. & Bardgett, R.D. (2020) Enhancing Soil Fertility. Pages 613-634 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Soil Fertility

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Soil Fertility
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust